gen_uthana_text_to_motion

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that explicit usage approval is required and points to a knowledge base article for the generative pipeline, but it does not explain cost/credit impact, asynchronous behavior, or what effects the operation has beyond generating a motion.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is short, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes a useful example and KB reference. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a seven-parameter generative tool with no annotations and likely external effects, the description leaves most parameter semantics and the tool's cost/time profile to an external KB. The presence of an output schema mitigates the need to document return values, but the description is still not complete enough for an agent to invoke this tool confidently.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only gives semantic hints for prompt and confirm_usage via the example; the other five parameters (foot_ik, timeout_s, character_id, session_name, estimated_seconds) remain unexplained in both the schema and the description.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific action (generate), a specific resource (Uthana motion), and the input modality (text), which is enough to distinguish it from siblings like gen_uthana_video_to_motion and gen_uthana_get_motion. The example reinforces the purpose with a concrete prompt.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides an implied usage context through the example and the KB pointer, and it states an important precondition: explicit usage approval. However, it does not explicitly say when to choose this tool over alternatives such as gen_uthana_video_to_motion or gen_uthana_create_locomotion, nor does it state when not to use it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.